The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and bail application of Tasleem Ahmed, holding that mere delay in trial is insufficient grounds for bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The appellant, Tasleem Ahmed, challenged the rejection of his third bail application by the trial court. He sought release solely on grounds of delay, claiming violation of his constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, as he remained in custody for over five years. He did not press any arguments on merits or parity with co-accused.
Notably, at the request of his counsel, the case of Ahmed was de-tagged from the group of other accused including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohammed Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima, which was heard by a different bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur.
The appellant was arrested pursuant to an FIR registered in March 2020 for local rioting and violence amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, and charges were framed under multiple sections of IPC, Arms Act, UAPA, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The appellant’s first two bail applications were denied, and his third sought bail only on grounds of delay in trial. The trial court rejected the plea, stating that delay cannot alone justify bail under UAPA.
The appellant’s counsel submitted that the accused had been in custody over five years, with trial yet to begin and over 700 witnesses to be examined, referencing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb[1]. The State objected that the interim bail application was not maintainable, not having first approached the Special Court, and that delay alone is not a ground for bail under UAPA’s stringent Section 43D(5).
The Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that most trial delays were attributable to defense counsels and accused (including the appellant), who repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to timely advance arguments.
The court relied on various judicial precedents to confirm the dual test under UAPA: (i) bail is not granted if prima facie case exists; and (ii) delay must be coupled with other severe circumstances. The court further clarified that while constitutional courts retain bail jurisdiction in exceptional cases when incarceration is punitive, this power cannot be exercised in automation for mere delay, especially when delay is accused-driven.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and interim bail application, emphasizing that factors such as long incarceration or trial delay are not independent grounds for bail without examining the merits. Only palpable breaches of fundamental rights, coupled with absence of a prima facie case, can justify bail. The court warned against manipulation of statutory safeguards and clarified that it had not assessed the merits of the charges. All pending applications were disposed accordingly.
Cases relied on:
1. Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 SCC 403
2. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1
3. UOI v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
4. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 15 SCC 56
5. Harpreet Singh Talwar alias Kabir Talwar v. State of Gujarat through National Investigating Agency, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1103
6. Jagtar Singh Johal v. NIA, 2024 SCC Online Del 89
7. Nayeem Ahmad Khan v. National Investigating Agency, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2233
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Sanawar, Mr. Kshitij Singh, Mr. Mohd. Hasan, Ms. Heem Sahoo, Ms. Nujhat Naseem, Mr. Sikander, Ms. Sadiya Sultan & Mr. Chirag Verma, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Prasad, SPP for the State, Mr. Madhukar Pandey, SPP (through VC) for State with Mr. Dhruv Pande, Mr. Aarush Bhatia, Mr. Ayodhya Prasad, Ms. Ruchika Prasad, Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Sulabh Gupta, Mr. Harshil Jain, Mr. Saravjeet Singh & Mr. Daksh Sachdeva, Advs. Mr. P.S.Kushwaha, Addl. CP (Special Cell) (VC), Insp. Anil Kumar, Insp. Suhaib Ahmed, ASI Sanjay Kumar, HC Dheeraj Goswami (Special Cell).
[1] (2021) 3 SCC 713
